Follow-up after radiological intervention in oncology: ECIO-ESOI evidence and consensus-based recommendations for clinical practice

Interventional radiology plays an important and increasing role in cancer treatment. Follow-up is important to be able to assess treatment success and detect locoregional and distant recurrence and recommendations for follow-up are needed. At ECIO 2018, a joint ECIO-ESOI session was organized to establish follow-up recommendations for oncologic intervention in liver, renal, and lung cancer. Treatments included thermal ablation, TACE, and TARE. In total five topics were evaluated: ablation in colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), TARE in CRLM, TACE and TARE in HCC, ablation in renal cancer, and ablation in lung cancer. Evaluated modalities were FDG-PET-CT, CT, MRI, and (contrast-enhanced) ultrasound. Prior to the session, five experts were selected and performed a systematic review and presented statements, which were voted on in a telephone conference prior to the meeting by all panelists. These statements were presented and discussed at the ECIO-ESOI session at ECIO 2018. This paper presents the recommendations that followed from these initiatives. Based on expert opinions and the available evidence, follow-up schedules were proposed for liver cancer, renal cancer, and lung cancer. FDG-PET-CT, CT, and MRI are the recommended modalities, but one should beware of false-positive signs of residual tumor or recurrence due to inflammation early after the intervention. There is a need for prospective preferably multicenter studies to validate new techniques and new response criteria. This paper presents recommendations that can be used in clinical practice to perform the follow-up of patients with liver, lung, and renal cancer who were treated with interventional locoregional therapies

Follow-up after radiological intervention in oncology: ECIO-ESOI evidence and consensus-based recommendations for clinical practice

Interventional radiology plays an important and increasing role in cancer treatment. Follow-up is important to be able to assess treatment success and detect locoregional and distant recurrence and recommendations for follow-up are needed. At ECIO 2018, a joint ECIO-ESOI session was organized to establish follow-up recommendations for oncologic intervention in liver, renal, and lung cancer. Treatments included thermal ablation, TACE, and TARE. In total five topics were evaluated: ablation in colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), TARE in CRLM, TACE and TARE in HCC, ablation in renal cancer, and ablation in lung cancer. Evaluated modalities were FDG-PET-CT, CT, MRI, and (contrast-enhanced) ultrasound. Prior to the session, five experts were selected and performed a systematic review and presented statements, which were voted on in a telephone conference prior to the meeting by all panelists. These statements were presented and discussed at the ECIO-ESOI session at ECIO 2018. This paper presents the recommendations that followed from these initiatives. Based on expert opinions and the available evidence, follow-up schedules were proposed for liver cancer, renal cancer, and lung cancer. FDG-PET-CT, CT, and MRI are the recommended modalities, but one should beware of false-positive signs of residual tumor or recurrence due to inflammation early after the intervention. There is a need for prospective preferably multicenter studies to validate new techniques and new response criteria. This paper presents recommendations that can be used in clinical practice to perform the follow-up of patients with liver, lung, and renal cancer who were treated with interventional locoregional therapies

Clinical impact of (18)F-choline PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical value of (18)F-fluorocholine PET/CT (CH-PET/CT) in treatment decisions in patients with recurrent prostate cancer (rPCA). METHODS: The study was a retrospective evaluation of 156 patients with rPCA and CH-PET/CT for restaging. Questionnaires for each examination were sent to the referring physicians 14-64 months after examination. Questions included information regarding initial extent of disease, curative first-line treatment, and the treatment plan before and after CH-PET/CT. Additionally, PSA values at diagnosis, after initial treatment, before CH-PET/CT and at the end of follow-up were also obtained from the questionnaires. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 42 months. The mean Gleason score was 6.9 at initial diagnosis. Initial treatment was: radical prostatectomy in 110 patients, radiotherapy in 39, and combined prostatectomy and radiotherapy in 7. Median PSA values before CH-PET/CT and at the end of follow-up were 3.40 ng/ml and 0.91 ng/ml. PSA levels remained stable, decreased or were below measurable levels in 108 patients. PSA levels increased in 48 patients. In 75 of the 156 patients (48%) the treatment plan was changed due to the CH-PET/CT findings. In 33 patients the therapeutic plan was changed from palliative treatment to treatment with curative intent. In 15 patients treatment was changed from curative to palliative. In 8 patients treatment was changed from curative to another strategy and in 2 patients from one palliative strategy to another. In 17 patients the treatment plan was adapted. CONCLUSION: CH-PET/CT has an important impact on the therapeutic strategy in patients with rPCA and can help to determine an appropriate treatment

Perfusion CT best predicts outcome after radioembolization of liver metastases: a comparison of radionuclide and CT imaging techniques

OBJECTIVE: To determine the best predictor for the response to and survival with transarterial radioembolisation (RE) with (90)yttrium microspheres in patients with liver metastases. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with liver metastases undergoing RE were evaluated with multiphase CT, perfusion CT and (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT. Arterial perfusion (AP) from perfusion CT, HU values from the arterial (aHU) and portal venous phase (pvHU) CT, and (99m)Tc-MAA uptake ratio of metastases were determined. Morphologic response was evaluated after 4 months and available in 30 patients. One-year survival was calculated with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: We found significant differences between responders and non-responders for AP (P 20 ml/100 ml/min had a significantly (P = 0.01) higher 1-year survival, whereas an aHU value >55 HU did not discriminate survival (P = 0.12). The Cox proportional hazard model revealed AP as the only significant (P = 0.02) independent predictor of survival. CONCLUSION: Compared to arterial and portal venous enhancement and the (99m)Tc-MAA uptake ratio of liver metastases, the AP from perfusion CT is the best predictor of morphologic response to and 1-year survival with RE. KEY POINTS: • Perfusion CT allows for calculation of the liver arterial perfusion. • Arterial perfusion of liver metastases differs between responders and non-responders to RE. • Arterial perfusion can be used to select patients responding to RE